Interesting thread on GT about bullet performance in actual shootings

I think that Doc has made it clear in the past that handgun bullets are poor tissue destructors. They basically only destroy what they touch. In the big spectrum a .355 hole is not that much smaller than a .671 hole, and thus even if a bullet does expand, the tissue destruction from bullets under 2000FPS is largely limited to what it actually crushes.

I heard from an emergency room surgeon on another site that stab wound victims have a much lower survival rate than gun shot wound victims. the bleeding is much more pronounced.

That actually goes back to Doc's .38 special recommendation where he states that a cutting edge on a low velocity bullet can actually speed up exsanguination. Perhaps that is where we need to be looking as an additional wounding effect in handgun bullets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocGKR

Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.

---

HAH, didnt see your post, as I was writing mine... Jinx.. you owe me a coke.:D

There are numerous reports in the medical and forensic literature that show a higher mortality rate with stabbing victims vs. those shot with handgun projectiles.

All of a sudden that pistol bayonet attachment starts to look pretty good...:p

I've been having this hankering to get a Roman sword for some reason. maybe this is why.:cool:

I think the general point being communicated here is that where a bullet ends up is vastly more important to the end result than what type of bullet (providing we are discussing service calibers here) is used. The potential effect of a good shot can be maximized using modern JHP that penetrates deep enough to hit vital structures and expands reliably to cause as much damage as possible.

Given that handguns are limited platforms it makes sense for those of us who are interested in using a firearm to stop the hostile actions of an attacker to focus on selecting a reliable platform in a reasonable caliber that we can best use to put bullets exactly where they are needed under the stress of a life or death encounter. Using myself as an example, I can shoot an M&P in 9mm under stress better than I can shoot an M&P in .45 ACP. Thus it would be irrational of me to trade in the performance I have with the 9mm version of the M&P solely to gain the little bit of extra permanent crush cavity offered by the .45 ACP. In reality my efficiency (measured by speed and accuracy) with the 9mm is more likely to provide a measurable difference in the fight than the bigger bullet.

I made a comment in that thread. It is a pity that I am stuck here in London, because I feel that he and I could probably collaborate with some success on the technical aspects of these shootings (pre and post admission to hospital).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Wayne777

In reality my efficiency (measured by speed and accuracy) with the 9mm is more likely to provide a measurable difference in the fight than the bigger bullet.

---

this is exactly why i finally made the switch to 9mm after a decade of 45-or-nothing mentality. though i shot my 1911 well enough, and shot my USP quite well (or so i thought, until i started shooting 9emem), i can get twice as many rounds COM with 9mm in the same time it takes to put controlled pairs COM with even the USP. and still have 13-14 rounds left in the weapon. twice as many shots means twice as many opportunities to hit important things.

---

the idea that a blunt/jagged expanded JHP through the skull won't have a greater effect than a connical FMJ is kind of absurd. through other vitals, as well- especially the lungs. i don't disbelieve Looking4u's account- i just think that's totally A-typical. also, while i've never bought into the "deadly shockwave" and "hydrostatic shock" gimmics, i do still think, even if only a small-percentile thing, that the "shoch wave," or "pressure wave," or whatever you want to call it, of an expanded JHP smacking and pushing through wet tissue is going to cause some kind of temporary disruption of surrounding sensitives- nerve signals, secretions, blood flow, etc- even just a temporary disruption of normal functioning, seems to me, might be enough to at least slow your assailant down enough to prevent him getting the one shot off that kills you. i've never been superficially shot, but i imagine it can still suck really bad, even in the heat/endorphine rush/chaos of a firefight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocGKR

I don't think I have ever stated any such thing. In fact, in my post above I stated the exact opposite and in fact recommended the use of modern robust expanding JHP's:



Having said that, keep in mind that a hit in a critical zone with an FMJ is far more effective than a peripheral hit or frank miss with a JHP--shot placement is king!

I am not sure why you are confused; it is all basic anatomy, physiology, and physics. Due to tissue elasticity, there is no way to reliably observe the macroscopic differences between a 0.355" FMJ projectile wound track compared with an expanded 0.65" JHP bullet track in live tissue--in no way does that fact negate the potential benefits of a JHP, as previously discussed.

The subtleties of ammunition selection are way down the list of important factors when discussing shooting results, as we have repeatedly emphasized (see my post above).

---

My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WS6

My confusion arises from the fact that you agree that an FMJ .40 wound looks like that made from a GDHP .40. Since there is no magical shock-wave damaging multiple organs (Having watched multiple laproscopic surgeries, I agree, organs are very spaced out), the bullet only destroys what is in it's path, and if the paths look to be of the same size, what is gained from the JHP other than lower penetration? They both have been stated to make the same-size hole according to people who have seen the two holes made by the various rounds. .40" and .75" would be visibly different, imho. Sorry, feeling a bit lost here. :confused:

---

I disagree with the premiss that hole size does not matter. Almost every piece of ballistic literature I've read indicates that it is indeed an advantage to use larger projectiles and also to use well designed expansion bullets. There are few that deny the logic behind it.

The push for smaller calibers comes from the operator end of the spectrum and is strictly focused on ease of use. It is generally easier to shoot a 9mm than a .40 or .45. In the grand scheme of things, the primary advantage to you is not caliber selection, but tactical aspects such as putting your opponent in a position of disadvantage while you retain a position of advantage. I would rather have a .22 with a POA for me and a POD for my opponent than have a M4 and have those roles reversed.

For me, given my selection of duty weapons I shoot 9mm best, .40S&W(180gr) second best, and .45acp worst when you take into account likely scenarios and overall weapon handling. Caliber size is important, but so is weapon handling. So, I split the difference and carry .40. The .40 also does better in the FBI barrier tests with a wide range of bullet types.

.......however, I've often wrestled with the temptation to just standardize on 9mm because it does make life so much easier in many other ways.

Too many variables in crime related shootings. Ballistic data acquiered in such investigations are deemed invalid, due to the fact that the majority of those involved are involved in their first, and last, only shooting incident. A skilled and properly trained shooter that has reacted to actual combat, is much more efficient with all said calibers.